Date: September 23, 2013 Last Edit: March 03, 2016

Army Corps of Engineers v.
– Regulatory Reform 

U.S. Supreme Court

The Clean Water Act (CWA)
prohibits dredging and filling activities within areas deemed jurisdictional.
Landowners face civil penalties of $37,500 for negligent violations, and up to
$50,000 in penalties or jail for knowing violations. The difficulty is that it
is often difficult to say whether one’s land is covered by the CWA. But once
Army Corps of Engineers definitively determines that a given property is
subject to CWA restrictions, NFIB maintains that a landowner should have a
right to seek judicial review if they disagree. In this case, a small business
sought to challenge the Corps’ official jurisdictional assessment in court, but
Army Corps argues that they have no right to go to court yet. Instead, Army
Corps argues that the landowner must apply for a federal permit—which is
exorbitantly expensive and only required by law if the Corps is correct in
asserting jurisdiction. In our brief to the Supreme Court, NFIB Small Business
Legal Center emphasized that due process requires that a landowner be allowed
an immediate right to contest Army Corp’s assertion of regulatory


Status: PENDING. Amicus
brief filed 3/2/16.North Dakota v. Heydinger
– Regulatory Reform

MN Supreme Court

joined with Pacific Legal Foundation in this case, arguing that Minnesota’s
green energy standards violate the dormant commerce clause. In this case
Minnesota’s regulations effectively control out-of-state conduct, in a manner
that amounts to extraterritorial regulation.

White v. City of Elk River – Land Use and Property Rights
Minnesota Supreme Court

In this case, small business owner who has run a campground since the 1970s is now being told that she must cease camping activities. In 1983, her city enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited campgrounds, except if the landowner acquired a conditional use permit from the city. The business owner obtained a conditional use permit in 1984.  In 2010, the City revoked its 1984 conditional use and the business owner appealed the decision.

The NFIB Legal Center filed in this case arguing that the
campground owner never needed to obtain any permit to continue the same
campground operations that it had run since the 1970s. The Minnesota Supreme
Court accepted these arguments in ruling in favor of the landowner.



 If you have a case that impacts small
business, please contact us at: 
1-800-552-NFIB as we are actively looking for opportunities to weigh in
on important issues in this state. NFIB Small Business Legal Center is involved
in many cases that impact this state and others; to see our complete list of
Supreme Court cases click on Washington, DC on the interactive map.

Thank You

Subscribe For Free News And Tips

Enter your email to get FREE small business insights. Learn more

Get to know NFIB

NFIB is America's leading small business association, promoting and protecting the right of our members to own, operate and grow their business

Find out more about
NFIB Membership

Or call us today



State Issues

Choose Your State


YEF Foundation Research Center Legal Foundation

Member Benefits